Brong what up?Why bring that up? That's against the law. You may need some diversion treatment.
Deliverance from Calvinism
- Thread starter Angelo
- Start date
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I would like to encourage those that have left Calvinism to not be so opposed to the doctrine as to take the "popular opposite" position in response. That is what happened with Arminianism. It is the very definition of "false dichotomy" or "false dilemma".
I was never a five point Calvinist. The very idea of Limited Atonement is repulsive to me at every level. I was probably 90 percent on Total Depravity but for very different reasons. I migrated over time away from Perseverance of the Saints.
Just making the point that don't just take the opposite position. The Truth is often found somewhere in the middle.
Angelo
Administrator
Most Christians reject Calvinism because of theological disagreements centered on the TULIP doctrines .
Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints
Calvinism's views on predestination and God's absolute sovereignty portray a God who is unfair or even evil, and they contend that the doctrine undermines human free will and moral responsibility.
Calvinism presents a different, potentially corrupted, gospel that obscures God's universal love and the genuine opportunity for all to be saved through faith in Christ.
Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints
Calvinism's views on predestination and God's absolute sovereignty portray a God who is unfair or even evil, and they contend that the doctrine undermines human free will and moral responsibility.
Calvinism presents a different, potentially corrupted, gospel that obscures God's universal love and the genuine opportunity for all to be saved through faith in Christ.
Maybe civic could help me.
civic
Active Member
I was man enough to leave calvinism.
I didn't let pride stand in the way of over 40 plus years of being indoctrinated.
Angelo
Administrator
Good point.
civic
Active Member
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Many teachings in Calvinism actually first existed in Catholicism. Some have changed in Catholicism but the "base" is often found there. As "reformed" as Presbyterians like for people to think they are, they are really not.
Just so everyone knows, Calvin is considered the founder of the Presbyterians. While some insist that John Knox should be credited.
civic
Active Member
Yes as the saying goes the apple ( calvin, luther ) doesn't fall far from the tree ( RCC ).
Speculator
Active Member
That interesting, I need to study up on the history of Calvinism.
By being coherent would be a good place to start.how ?
serious question my friend.
civic
Active Member
I thought you were asking a real question. ie a sincere one.
I was man enough to become one. I did not let pride get in the way of me leaving Arminianism. Thatt was easyI was man enough to leave calvinism.
I didn't let pride stand in the way of over 40 plus years of being indoctrinated.
I was. And I gave a real response.
civic
Active Member
what is thatt ?
Theophilus
Administrator
Jumping from the pan into the fire. Your goose still gets cooked.
Angelo
Administrator
Ok so back to delivered from Calvinism.
Even Calvinists get derived into a more palatable form of Calvinism.
British Baptists
The softening of strict Calvinism among British Baptists in the late eighteenth century began with the move away from the high Calvinism of leaders such as John Gill and John Brine and the move toward new leaders such as Andrew Fuller, John Collett Ryland, John Ryland Jr., and Robert Hall of Arnesby. In contrast to the strict Particular Baptists, these young leaders, spurred on by the revival fervor of the day, emphasized the free offer of the gospel and the death of Christ for all people, yet they were still Calvinist in their espousal of unconditional election and irresistible grace. Andrew Fuller even forged a friendship and made common cause with Dan Taylor, the principal leader of the New Connexion of General Baptists. While the two friends debated controverted points of doctrine, the cordial spirit between them differed from the more hostile tension between Fuller and the hyper-Calvinists and Antinomians.
This softening gave way to full-blown dissent from orthodox Calvinism among the British Baptists as the nineteenth century progressed, to the point where W. T. Whitley could say in 1928, “The great mass of Baptists no longer attend to the question at all.… For the majority the truth or falsity of Calvinism is a vanished condition.” As Gerald Parsons said of English Nonconformity in general, “The decline of the old high Calvinism” exemplified “the impact of the evangelical revival upon the Old Dissent.… Old theological distinctions between Arminians and Calvinists, or between varieties of Calvinism, became less central and less decisive in shaping the pattern of nineteenth-century Nonconformity.” This was seen in the revised constitution of the loosely united Baptist Union in Great Britain in 1832.
The erosion of Calvinism among British Baptists is evidenced by the formation of new Particular Baptist associations that separated from the mainstream Baptist movement in Great Britain. In the 1840s, for example, groups of strict Particular Baptists organized new associations such as the New London Strict Association (1845) and the New Suffolk and Norfolk Association of Strict Baptists (1848). They formed these new associations to separate from Baptists who were de-emphasizing Calvinism in their alliances with General Baptists. These associations even tried to establish a national strict Particular Baptist body but failed. Robert Torbet explained that in the 1840s London was the center of this controversy between stricter and milder Calvinists, but it moved north in the 1850s. Some congregations, for example, separated from the Lancashire and Cheshire associations, stating that the associations were “on the ‘down-grade’ from strict Calvinism and close communion.”
One sees the same trend among Scottish Baptists from the 1840s through the 1860s. Calvinism began declining among Scottish Baptists just as it was declining in the Reformed churches generally. This deterioration began to occur in the 1840s through the influence of Baptist Union of Scotland leaders such as Francis Johnston, William Landels, and Thomas Milner, who were influenced by the theology and practices of Charles Finney. The Baptist Union ceased to exist in 1853, but by the time it was relaunched in 1869, Talbot explained, Calvinism’s ascendancy “was now over. An era in which evangelical Arminianism predominated was now about to take place.”
The decline of Calvinism in Great Britain continued into the late nineteenth century as Baptists moved toward a more formal union of their Calvinist and Arminian branches in 1891. The desuetude of Calvinist orthodoxy among English Baptists is illustrated no more vividly than in an 1868 article in the General Baptist Magazine, which celebrated the fact that the Particular Baptists had “become wiser” in shedding their strong Calvinism:
There is no need now that we should be distinct from the other section of the Baptist body. The extravagant Calvinism of years gone by in Particular Baptist churches has been discarded or moderated and rendered agreeable. Our existence has been necessary as a protest. Our existence now is necessary as a friend and an ally. Our views of the atonement are held in so-called Particular Baptist churches, and a moderate Calvinism exists even among our own. Now we are really one with the other body. General and Particular are words which might be disused. Our greater brother has become wiser; we need not now protest but may walk and prosper with him.
British Baptists were taking part in a broader deterioration of Calvinism in other denominations. In 1876, for example, the General Baptist Magazine noted the same slippage among the Independents (Congregationalists), citing R. W. Dale to the effect that “Calvinism is almost an obsolete theory amongst Independents,” and that “the doctrine of ‘general redemption’ … is generally accepted and preached amongst them.” By 1891 the Particular and General Baptists came together in formal union, and, as Robert Torbet said, “only a few Baptist churches in the northern counties still remained outside the fellowship; they were either Scotch or Strict Particular Baptists.”
J. Matthew Pinson
Even Calvinists get derived into a more palatable form of Calvinism.
British Baptists
The softening of strict Calvinism among British Baptists in the late eighteenth century began with the move away from the high Calvinism of leaders such as John Gill and John Brine and the move toward new leaders such as Andrew Fuller, John Collett Ryland, John Ryland Jr., and Robert Hall of Arnesby. In contrast to the strict Particular Baptists, these young leaders, spurred on by the revival fervor of the day, emphasized the free offer of the gospel and the death of Christ for all people, yet they were still Calvinist in their espousal of unconditional election and irresistible grace. Andrew Fuller even forged a friendship and made common cause with Dan Taylor, the principal leader of the New Connexion of General Baptists. While the two friends debated controverted points of doctrine, the cordial spirit between them differed from the more hostile tension between Fuller and the hyper-Calvinists and Antinomians.
This softening gave way to full-blown dissent from orthodox Calvinism among the British Baptists as the nineteenth century progressed, to the point where W. T. Whitley could say in 1928, “The great mass of Baptists no longer attend to the question at all.… For the majority the truth or falsity of Calvinism is a vanished condition.” As Gerald Parsons said of English Nonconformity in general, “The decline of the old high Calvinism” exemplified “the impact of the evangelical revival upon the Old Dissent.… Old theological distinctions between Arminians and Calvinists, or between varieties of Calvinism, became less central and less decisive in shaping the pattern of nineteenth-century Nonconformity.” This was seen in the revised constitution of the loosely united Baptist Union in Great Britain in 1832.
The erosion of Calvinism among British Baptists is evidenced by the formation of new Particular Baptist associations that separated from the mainstream Baptist movement in Great Britain. In the 1840s, for example, groups of strict Particular Baptists organized new associations such as the New London Strict Association (1845) and the New Suffolk and Norfolk Association of Strict Baptists (1848). They formed these new associations to separate from Baptists who were de-emphasizing Calvinism in their alliances with General Baptists. These associations even tried to establish a national strict Particular Baptist body but failed. Robert Torbet explained that in the 1840s London was the center of this controversy between stricter and milder Calvinists, but it moved north in the 1850s. Some congregations, for example, separated from the Lancashire and Cheshire associations, stating that the associations were “on the ‘down-grade’ from strict Calvinism and close communion.”
One sees the same trend among Scottish Baptists from the 1840s through the 1860s. Calvinism began declining among Scottish Baptists just as it was declining in the Reformed churches generally. This deterioration began to occur in the 1840s through the influence of Baptist Union of Scotland leaders such as Francis Johnston, William Landels, and Thomas Milner, who were influenced by the theology and practices of Charles Finney. The Baptist Union ceased to exist in 1853, but by the time it was relaunched in 1869, Talbot explained, Calvinism’s ascendancy “was now over. An era in which evangelical Arminianism predominated was now about to take place.”
The decline of Calvinism in Great Britain continued into the late nineteenth century as Baptists moved toward a more formal union of their Calvinist and Arminian branches in 1891. The desuetude of Calvinist orthodoxy among English Baptists is illustrated no more vividly than in an 1868 article in the General Baptist Magazine, which celebrated the fact that the Particular Baptists had “become wiser” in shedding their strong Calvinism:
There is no need now that we should be distinct from the other section of the Baptist body. The extravagant Calvinism of years gone by in Particular Baptist churches has been discarded or moderated and rendered agreeable. Our existence has been necessary as a protest. Our existence now is necessary as a friend and an ally. Our views of the atonement are held in so-called Particular Baptist churches, and a moderate Calvinism exists even among our own. Now we are really one with the other body. General and Particular are words which might be disused. Our greater brother has become wiser; we need not now protest but may walk and prosper with him.
British Baptists were taking part in a broader deterioration of Calvinism in other denominations. In 1876, for example, the General Baptist Magazine noted the same slippage among the Independents (Congregationalists), citing R. W. Dale to the effect that “Calvinism is almost an obsolete theory amongst Independents,” and that “the doctrine of ‘general redemption’ … is generally accepted and preached amongst them.” By 1891 the Particular and General Baptists came together in formal union, and, as Robert Torbet said, “only a few Baptist churches in the northern counties still remained outside the fellowship; they were either Scotch or Strict Particular Baptists.”
J. Matthew Pinson
civic
Active Member
Thanks for the history!
Here is a simple and scriptural way to understand if a person has a “stronghold” in there mind whereby they can’t see the truth of the scripture because their “stronghold” is exalting itself against the knowledge of the truth.
Ask this question:
Please answer with a simple yes or no.
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
If denotes the condition by which you will be saved.
Question:
Based on this scripture, do you believe that confessing Jesus as Lord is required for an unsaved person to become saved?
If they have a stronghold which leans on their belief system over the truth of the scripture, they won’t answer but perpetually dodge the question.
Some may even say no.
A stronghold is a fortified belief system that is formed in the mind by a doctrine of demons in which the mind is prevented from receiving the knowledge of the truth.
In short, a stronghold is a lie the devil has programmed you to believe.
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 2 Corinthians 10:4-5
Notice that strongholds are associated with, “arguments”, that exalt itself against the knowledge (truth) of God.
I think we all can agree, when discussing scripture with Calvinists, there is much “arguments”.
Those pesky demons that carefully constructed that false belief system in their mind usually starts attacking those who are bringing the truth of God’s word to bear against the “stronghold” of lies that person has been programmed to believe.
This scripture is a good fit for this issue.
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. 1 Timothy 4:1
That’s what we are facing, deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.
Let’s pray and use our weapons of truth, to skillfully to set these people free.
Keep up the good fight of faith.
Ask this question:
Please answer with a simple yes or no.
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
If denotes the condition by which you will be saved.
Question:
Based on this scripture, do you believe that confessing Jesus as Lord is required for an unsaved person to become saved?
If they have a stronghold which leans on their belief system over the truth of the scripture, they won’t answer but perpetually dodge the question.
Some may even say no.
A stronghold is a fortified belief system that is formed in the mind by a doctrine of demons in which the mind is prevented from receiving the knowledge of the truth.
In short, a stronghold is a lie the devil has programmed you to believe.
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 2 Corinthians 10:4-5
Notice that strongholds are associated with, “arguments”, that exalt itself against the knowledge (truth) of God.
I think we all can agree, when discussing scripture with Calvinists, there is much “arguments”.
Those pesky demons that carefully constructed that false belief system in their mind usually starts attacking those who are bringing the truth of God’s word to bear against the “stronghold” of lies that person has been programmed to believe.
This scripture is a good fit for this issue.
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. 1 Timothy 4:1
That’s what we are facing, deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.
Let’s pray and use our weapons of truth, to skillfully to set these people free.
Keep up the good fight of faith.
Similar threads
